A film 'look' in the near future?

[colint544]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The film versus digital debate has been done to death. But I'm curious if we'll reach a point where digital files will be indistinguishable from, say, the look of Kodak Portra.

In the past three years, I've kind of fallen for the look of Portra 400. I'm attaching exhibit A - the picture that really made me sit up and pay attention. I shot it around three years ago. It was on my Leica M2, 28 Summicron ASPH, and Portra 400. When I scanned it, I could not believe how nice the colours and tones were. I was an instant Portra convert.

I still cannot get that look from native digital files. A friend of mine has just bought a Fuji 100V, and there are endless 'recipes' - plug-in film simulations for Lightroom. Some are pretty good, but still they're not the same as film. 

And yet, over on Instagram, I've come across this guy. I'm impressed. He shoots digitally, but I think he's getting pretty close to that Portra look. I asked him how he did it, and he said it's just with the sliders on Lightroom. People are clever. I reckon we can't be far from a time when it happens. 

What does anyone else think?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited May 25, 2021 by colint544

[pedaes]

12 minutes ago, colint544 said:

if we'll reach a point where digital files will be indistinguishable from, say, the look of Kodak Portra

I think with a 24mp+ dng file, a calibrated screen, Lrc or your processing software of choice you can have any look you want.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[colint544]

6 minutes ago, pedaes said:

I think with a 24mp+ dng file, a calibrated screen, Lrc or your processing software of choice you can have any look you want.

I guess. Perhaps we're already there. 

[ianman]

I think we can get pretty close. But until we have some sort of sensor that can mimic the randomness and structure (meaning distribution and particle size) of silver halide (on every shoot  ) it will always be nothing more than a simulation.

On the other hand, when you see people demanding more resolution, more perfection, more this, more that in their digital files, I'm not sure the "film" look is what they are after.

[ianman]

In addition... there is look and the is detailed look. In this photo you posted, the thin stronhly backlit branches at the edges would not look at all the same in a digital file, no matter how much knob twiddling goes on. 

[plasticman]

1 hour ago, colint544 said:

And yet, over on Instagram, I've come across this guy. I'm impressed. He shoots digitally, but I think he's getting pretty close to that Portra look. I asked him how he did it, and he said it's just with the sliders on Lightroom. People are clever. I reckon we can't be far from a time when it happens. 

What does anyone else think?

People have been trying to get the airy Portra look in their digital files for years - me included. There've been quite a few good efforts - better (in my opinion) than the bright pastel pastiche  of the linked instagram account - which has none of the subtlety of genuine Portra film. One of the better efforts is from an old post by Johnny Patience - you can see his results here. 

The same blog has some Lightroom settings in this post. 

The main problem is getting the overall harmonious tones of Portra in the emulation - where adjusting one part of your digital file leads to a detrimental effect on other colors. It's a really difficult problem - and believe me, I've done my best to get my digital files to match my film files as well as I can. 

Probably the absolutely best Portra emulation has been done by Kyle McDougall for Fuji sensors. Here's a crazy tip:at least if you're working on a Mac if you change your DNG files to have the .RAF extension, then you can apply Kyle's preset to your images. They work really well for landscapes ,but unfortunately less well for the beautiful skin tones that real Portra gives you.

Essentially chasing the 'film look' is a chimera - the only way to get all of it (the tones, the harmony, the lovely grain, the subtle 'accidents') is (yep) shooting film.

Edited May 25, 2021 by plasticman
one link not working

[Ouroboros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A few years ago the washed-out pastel look that Portra 400 can produce (it can also be as punchy and vibrant as Ektar) became very popular with many wedding photographers and a plethora of 'film pack' plug-ins followed.  Personally I think the effect, although very nice with the right location, the right light, the right human subjects and the right pp,  can be overdone and ultimately tedious.  It isn't a look I would want in my wedding photography from a wet, cold and dull January day in the West of Ireland!   

The problem for many photographers who are wanting  a 'film look' in their images is that they've never used film and they don't really know what it is they're looking for other than a higher-key tonal range and colour palette they have seen somewhere.  More almost-but-not-quite plugins become popular on the back of their quest and the digital 'film look' often deviates further from the reality of film.

Fujifilm have been pretty good with some of their X-series camera profiles; Classic Chrome is very nice and prints beautifully on Crystal Archive but it is always a digital file on screen and not at all a file with the 'film look'.

I still maintain that if you want the authentic film look, the best thing to do is shoot film until something eventually convinces me otherwise.

[colint544]

30 minutes ago, ianman said:

I think we can get pretty close. But until we have some sort of sensor that can mimic the randomness and structure (meaning distribution and particle size) of silver halide (on every shoot  ) it will always be nothing more than a simulation.

On the other hand, when you see people demanding more resolution, more perfection, more this, more that in their digital files, I'm not sure the "film" look is what they are after.

Think you're onto something there, Ian. As more pixels are squeezed onto sensors, things get sharper and sharper, and  yes, maybe further from the film look. I'm seeing that a popular accessory for the Fuji X100V is a filter called the Tiffen Mist. It actually reduces the apparent resolution on the original file!

[colint544]

3 minutes ago, plasticman said:

People have been trying to get the airy Portra look in their digital files for years - me included. There've been quite a few good efforts - better (in my opinion) than the bright pastel pastiche  of the linked instagram account - which has none of the subtlety of genuine Portra film. One of the better efforts is from an old post by Johnny Patience - you can see his results here. 

The same blog has some Lightroom settings in this post. 

The main problem is getting the overall harmonious tones of Portra in the emulation - where adjusting one part of your digital file leads to a detrimental effect on other colors. It's a really difficult problem - and believe me, I've done my best to get my digital files to match my film files as well as I can. 

Probably the absolutely best Portra emulation has been done by Kyle McDougall for Fuji sensors. Here's a crazy tip:at least if you're working on a Mac if you change your DNG files to have the .RAF extension, then you can apply Kyle's preset to your images. They work really well for landscapes ,but unfortunately less well for the beautiful skin tones that real Portra gives you.

Essentially chasing the 'film look' is a chimera - the only way to get all of it (the tones, the harmony, the lovely grain, the subtle 'accidents') is (yep) shooting film.

Most illuminating - thanks!

[250swb]

9 minutes ago, plasticman said:

 

The same blog has some Lightroom settings in this post. 

 

This is the key, but only for a thin airy pastel type of Portra 400 photograph where the shot is overexposed by two or three stops. Rate Portra at 400 and the image is quite different. So defining what is meant by the 'look' of Portra 400 is a problem if it's assumed to be intrinsic to the film, or intrinsic to a style of Californian photography. Overexposing almost any colour negative film will get a similar 'look', but maybe it's become the Portra 400 look because of the availability of Kodak film in America.

As for replicating the look I think it's possible using the sliders right now, no need to wait, but understanding what you are looking at in a photograph and why it exists as it does is half the battle. So understanding the effect of overexposure on a negative film reveals some of the techniques needed replicate it, as does understanding the light illuminating the scene. So I think given the OP is apparently residing in Glasgow it's dubious that even by playing with sliders all day long he'll eventually make it look like California or the mid-West.  

[plasticman]

5 minutes ago, 250swb said:

So I think given the OP is apparently residing in Glasgow it's dubious that even by playing with sliders all day long he'll eventually make it look like California or the mid-West.  

Are you telling me that Glasgow doesn't have palm trees and sun-drenched beach huts? I'm shocked!

[Charles Morgan]

I tried similar with my Fuji XH1, for which there were numerous online recipes. To be honest I found it a total bore, fiddling with in camera or sliders in LR. I have come to appreciate digital black and white as quite good enough without the need for trying to make it look like film, colour digital saves me a lot of money and is again, quite good enough. If I want a film look, I'll use film. 

 

 

[250swb]

5 minutes ago, plasticman said:

Are you telling me that Glasgow doesn't have palm trees and sun-drenched beach huts? I'm shocked!

Maybe the mural on the wall behind the counter of the chip shop.

[Charles Morgan]

Perhaps a photo of a coconut palm shading a deep-fried battered Bounty Bar?

[pedaes]

2 hours ago, ianman said:

stronhly backlit branches at the edges would not look at all the same in a digital file

Oh no! Not LoCA and LaCA again.😃

[evikne]

I am one of those who have never used film, but who still wants a "film look" in my images. I enjoy very much to see other's film pictures both here in this forum and other places, and I am a bit "jealous" because they look so good. But I have grown up in the digital age and I'm probably a bit too lazy to learn this now. 😊

Instead I have experimented a lot with both my own LR presets and purchased many different ones, including these from RNI. They are quite expensive though, but they are the best I've tried so far.

[oldwino]

I always thought the 16MP sensor in the X2 came the closest to "film". It seemed to have the right combination of resolution and a nice "grain" when used at slightly higher ISOs. 

The 24MP sensor, at least in the TL/CL, resolves a bit too much to emulate film, at least 135. Maybe it's more like 120 and slide film. Maybe. 

[Jeff S]

Film is film and digital is digital, but for me the the print is the best way to optimize the respective results, not just color/tonality, but in texture, luminosity and feel.  Screen shots not only don’t do justice, but one doesn’t know how someone else’s screen renders the result (color or b&w). But as always, the most important variables are the photographer AND the printer (the person, not machine) for determining the ultimate outcome. It’s never been ‘plug and play’, darkroom or digital.

Jeff

[Einst_Stein]

Film is changing.

For film to survive in the new generation of young photographers (after out of the wilderness and passed the old generations), it must have the look of Leica M9 digital image. It would be debated whether post-scan color adjustment is acceptable. The professional grade films would be advertised to have "M9 look straight out of scanner! " 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[oldwino]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Film is changing.

For film to survive in the new generation of young photographers (after out of the wilderness and passed the old generations), it must have the look of Leica M9 digital image. It would be debated whether post-scan color adjustment is acceptable. The professional grade films would be advertised to have "M9 look straight out of scanner! " 

“Oh, you mean ‘old school’”, he muttered, as he cut film leaders and loaded his 1932 Leica II.